Why can AH planes climb when missing a wing by bank ing 90.....

[GScholz]

I seem to have been pwned. I stand corrected. 

[Sunka]

Film or lies!   

[BuckShot]

Ready the ballistas!

[Brooke]

Just about any object can generate lift with enough speed.  Knife-edge planes can climb for a little bit that way, but unless (as pointed out) they have large enough thrust/weight, eventually airspeed drops, and they won't be able to maintain even level flight that way.

Planes with T/W well less than 1 do something similar commonly at airshows (called a "knife edge").

Here's a video of one.  Note that he adds more and more rudder and that, by the end of the pass, he's out of enough airspeed to hold it and rolls out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvn_PTs0e5Q

Aces High has no problems with its aerodynamic modeling in this regard.

[dirtdart]

Ice pack they cannot for long. The lift created by the fuse eventually is negated by aoa and drag. Then as you have stated the prop is flying the airplane not the fuselage or the wing.  I have pics of an1k2 maintaining level flight missing left stab and left outer wing. Seems impossible until I saw the "avatar" comment which makes sense to me.  Saw your discussion yesterday with the aerobatic pilot... i think he was missing the point. I do not believe that prop airplanes can fly missing an entire half of a wing.  1/4 of a wing sure.

[LCADolby]

 

Is this another bold claim icepac?

I'd like to see an actual film of said event otherwise you're talking utter bollocks as per usual.

[Gemini]

Or you can just make stuff up and say no film is required.

The key element of any icepac post

[icepac]

What you describe, descending to build speed for a ballistic climb, sounds completely reasonable. If you are convinced it's a bug you know where to post it.

Ok......so what mechanism is changing the descent into a ballistic climb?

I am saying that planes here can lose a wing, descend, and build enough speed to go from descent to climb while banked 90 degrees while only using the rudder.

Is this another bold claim icepac?

I'd like to see an actual film of said event otherwise you're talking utter bollocks as per usual.

If you haven't experienced it yourself, then I question your ability to comment.

Also......I do provide films yet you ignore them while claiming I provide no films because said films prove you wrong.

I'm sure I have a film but how about Dolby volunteer to shoot the wing off of my plane while I fly straight and level at 20,000 feet so I can demonstrate it?

You can film it yourself.

That would give you a chance to actually score a kill on me which has eluded you.

I have the advantage of already having done what I claim and I would be surprised that nobody else has made the same observation since this has been going on since warbirds 2.77 where you could fly a zero two sectors missing a wing and land it by establishing level flight right above the runway and banking back level wings right at touchdown.

I'll add some screenshots later from the film of the conversation in which a claimed cfii shows huge ignorance to basic physics and understanding of how a plane flies.

[Brooke]

You don't need to lose a wing to fly knife edge for a bit.

The key is, as explained above, "for a bit".  You can do it until you run out of enough airspeed for your fuselage to generate enough lift.  (Lift is proportional to the square of velocity.)

Here is a video of a Pitts doing it.  Note that a Pitts can't fly for long this way, but it can for a bit after building up enough speed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvn_PTs0e5Q

Aces High gets this correct.  If it didn't work this way in AH, it would be incorrect modeling.

[LCADolby]

Also......I do provide films yet you ignore them while claiming I provide no films because said films prove you wrong.

Please link said films of the happening you describe. I would like to see the entire film from beginning to its conclusion.

Thanks in advance.

[FLS]

Ok......so what mechanism is changing the descent into a ballistic climb?

I am saying that planes here can lose a wing, descend, and build enough speed to go from descent to climb while banked 90 degrees while only using the rudder.

The rudder works like the elevator when you are rolled 90.  Generally you get the nose up before you roll because there is so little lift when you don't use your wings. When you are flying knife edge with one wing or two you are only flying straight if there is no lift from the wings.  In order to climb you need more lift then you do to fly straight but to zoom climb you only need momentum. This is why you have to dive first. We generally zoom climb with both lift and momentum but you can zoom in any fighter at 0 G and still be climbing even though you're at the 0 lift AOA.

[Skyyr]

I'll add some screenshots later from the film of the conversation in which a claimed cfii shows huge ignorance to basic physics and understanding of how a plane flies.

I'll chime in here. I'm the guy that he's referring to.

What sparked this was IcePac's comment that "NO plane can climb [sustained] while knife-edge." I spoke up and said that any plane with a thrust/weight ratio of 1.0 or greater can climb, regardless of lift vector or orientation.

Icepac, instead of realizing that he made a mistake by stating no aircraft could climb knife-edge (F-16's, F-22's, Su-37's, etc. all have T/W ratios of 1.0 or more and can climb at any angle, sustained), decided to try to dig himself deeper by stating that ONLY the wing can produce lift.

Lift comes from three primary areas:
1) from the portion of the thrust vector that directly opposes weight,
2) from the ram-air/impact effect of the relative wind defecting into a vector that opposes weight
3) from the lifting airfoils/wing(s)

Instead of simply acknowledging that, he decided to devolve the conversation further where we got onto the subject of stabilizers. I stated that stabilizers produce lift as part of number three (above) (they do - all airfoils, by design, must produce lift). What he didn't seem to understand was that it produces lift in downward direction, but it is still a lifting force and it is still called a lifting force, and he proceeded to argue that the tail doesn't produce lift, which is why it's so much smaller than the primary airfoil (wing). He didn't seem to understand the difference between lift (as a force) vs lift vectors. His argument was akin to stating that a car driving in reverse isn't really "driving", because it's not moving forward (I actually presented that example to him to point out the flaw in reasoning) - just because lift is in a downward direction doesn't change the fact that it's lift.

I then pointed out that rolling an aircraft inverted changes the lift vectors of the airfoils relative to gravity (in other words, roll inverted [without changing the overall AoA, other than inverting it] and your stabilizer, left uncorrected, will naturally create lift directly upwards, against the aircraft weight). Keep in mind we're talking traditional/GA aircraft here for simplicity (not military/aerobatic aircraft with neutral or otherwise different cambers). He then asked a series of completed unrelated questions, showing a lack of understanding about leverage forces and how the tail is smaller because it has a further arm/fulcrum from the CG.

Anyone who is familiar with aerodynamics, please feel free to examine and critique the above, if you find it incorrect (which it's not).

To address his question, you can dive and pick up enough airspeed, then roll 90* and use the rudder to deflect the airflow enough to maintain level flight... with enough airspeed. In fact, you can do it for several seconds at a time in the right aircraft (it must have good rudder authority). The wind deflection against the fuselage and the rudder is enough to keep it airborne. However, both of these surfaces will create an usually large amount of form drag and, eventually, will slow the plane down to the point that it's no longer sustainable.

However, given enough altitude, you can fly a series of "waves" (descend for speed, hard rudder for climb, descend for speed), to stay in flight for a good while. This is probably what he saw, as I've experienced the same thing myself. It takes a smart pilot, but at 20k, you can probably get a good two minutes of flight time out of something like a Yak-3.

Given enough speed, ANY surface will produce lift.

See here for a close-enough related real-life event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ76BSassms

[icepac]

The rudder works like the elevator when you are rolled 90.  Generally you get the nose up before you roll because there is so little lift when you don't use your wings. When you are flying knife edge with one wing or two you are only flying straight if there is no lift from the wings.  In order to climb you need more lift then you do to fly straight but to zoom climb you only need momentum. This is why you have to dive first. We generally zoom climb with both lift and momentum but you can zoom in any fighter at 0 G and still be climbing even though you're at the 0 lift AOA.

In a normal configuration airplane (of which all but the 163 in aces high are) the elevator/stab provides downforce to pivot the plane such that the wing achieves enough angle of attack to provide lift to climb

In a 90 degree bank, the rudder is  now charged to do the job of the horizontal stabilizer/elevator.

Sadly, there is  no wing for the rudder to influence into gaining the angle of attack required to generate enough lift for the plane to climb.

In aces high, what is providing the lift required to generate a positive rate of climb?

Skyyr immediately starts muddying the waters by running away toward bizarre airplane configurations that have nothing to do with the subject........which is planes in aces climbing while banked 90 degrees only using the rudder.

First he moves to the XFV pogo not realizing that only the thrust itself is what causes the plane to take off.

That's thrust directly countering gravity...............and it has nothing to do with the subject....bad example.

He even get's the name of the plane incorrect.







Then he's incorrect on the horizontal stabilizer/elevator's role in a standard configuration airplane.........which is the subject being discussed after he shifts the subject to stabilizer/elevator from rudder so I pose a super simple question using a common airplane but he's not answering even though this reference is in the first few pages of most every single basic flight book.



Nox gets it and answers the question correctly.

The claimed CFII still gets it wrong.



Then he tries to shift his references to another plane with non-standard configuration (not at all what we were discussing).



The film is an entire treasure trove of guys being incorrect as well as some who understand chiming in and skyyr never attempted to stay on subject.

Also skyyr.....shame on you for muddying the waters further by using a plane with a configuration completely different than the subject of the discussion.

Using that F15 shows a complete lack of understanding for the simple fact that the F15 has horizontal stabilators that can be deflected independent of each other.

The pilot was able to achieve level flight only because of this and, again, this has nothing to do with the subject of the discussion.

[Skyyr]

If what I said is wrong, which I spelled-out clearly in my previous post, then please, address it. Trying to take quotes out of context, such as a typo on the XFV (which I quickly corrected) is disingenuous.

I posted a very clear, very concise explanation in my previous post, that reflects everything that was said in-game. As I said, anyone who has a background or knowledge in aerodynamics can confirm it's correct (which is why I posted it here). It's not my fault that you went down this path because you simply wouldn't retract your statement of "no plane can climb while knife-edge."

Further, you completely ignored my answer to your question in this post. At high-speed knife-edge flight, the fuselage and rudder ARE the lifting surfaces. Watch the video of the F-15 I posted - it's the same concept. The difference is that the flight isn't sustainable, but instantaneous lift still IS possible. By flying a series of "waves," diving for airspeed, ruddering for lift, you can keep an aircraft in the air for a good amount of time. You will run out of airspeed and altitude eventually, but you can delay it for several minutes if you start at an altitude of 20,000ft or so.

The F15 produced lift not because of independent elevators, but because of the mechanics of high-speed airflow. Any object, even a brick (yes, literally a brick), will generate actual lift at sufficiently high speeds. The F15 did this, which is why the pilot couldn't maintain control until after he activated the afterburners.

[FLS]

You don't need a wing to pivot, you just need a CG. As I said, the climb angle is generally set before you are knife edge. If you have a film that shows otherwise I'd like to see it.